DISQUS

I don’t know or care about Airborne. I do find you narrow and simpleminded however. I work in the Pharma industry. Once again sentence by sentence. You took this in three parts:

The school teacher issue:

-Still I trust the school teacher as much, if not more than some big pharma, paying off the FDA and rushing a product to market that has to have disclaimers like, “discontinue use if anal bleeding becomes severe.”




The vague ingredients list:

- Your use of the FDA as a defense in your argument is laughable. This is the same FDA that is continually re-aligning its guidelines to help the pharma industry police itself. Big Pharma and the FDA are just as quick to sell you a pile of chemicals that they know squat about, because some rats seemed happier while taking them. I would bet my liver that there is no more risk in Airborne as there is in Paxil. I don’t think anyone has had any trouble getting off of Airborne. Or killing themselves while on Airborne…or bleeding from the rectum for that matter. Your argument here also assumes that the average person has a clue to what they are reading when they look at the ingredients of their big pharma, FDA regulated medications.


…and the “key ingredients have been shown…as shown…etc.”

-So, in case you didn’t know what a healthy immune system is…they (healthy immune systems) are shown (apparently) in scientific studies and medical journals. What I get from this is that if your immune system isn’t healthy, then Airborne might not be for you. Go figure. Before you get into grammar and semantics, I think you should re-read everything you wrote here.